Uploaded by Background Pony #A462
580x580 JPG 48 kB
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
No description provided.
Tags
+-SH suggestive196699 +-SH artist:weaver1782 +-SH twilight sparkle372666 +-SH alicorn338552 +-SH pony1719418 +-SH g42130396 +-SH adventure in the comments1355 +-SH bipedal53383 +-SH contradiction26 +-SH drama3364 +-SH female1921206 +-SH feminism sign3 +-SH floppy ears78434 +-SH frown39035 +-SH glare9224 +-SH hoof hold14701 +-SH looking at you278592 +-SH parody17841 +-SH sign5540 +-SH simple background648779 +-SH solo1509713 +-SH spread wings106512 +-SH text98999 +-SH twilight sparkle (alicorn)155665 +-SH vulgar26458 +-SH weaver you magnificent bastard123 +-SH white background180764
Loading...
Loading...
You should know better than to call people retards. Though I guess you didn’t know I was subscribed to this one.
No. No, they cannot.
…Her wings to be removed I mean
Yeah… Today is going to suck :( .
The benefits either come from that flawed study in Africa or from uninformed individuals (which are usually circumscribed since birth) claiming it’s cleaner. The smegma produced under the foreskin is there to keep it lubricated and is washed off easily. It prevents rather than causes health issues.
As I already said there are minor forms of FGM (from the same group which promotes MGM in America) which are comparable to MGM. There are types of MGM practiced in other countries which are way worse than some types of FGM.
Hey, at least I’m not the one who stayed up all night arguing. :P
Oh, excellent, someone else is taking the bait, so I may now take my leave properly :3 .
…Although given that it’s been an hour, I was probably able to leave regardless.
Male and female genitalia are fundamentally different, so I see little reason to compare them.
The complications and risks you mentioned are balanced by the various benefits.
So as far as I’m concerned, consent is really the only argument worth talking about, and that much I will agree is a vexing question.
First: Any surgical procedures are inherently risky (it’s rare but infants do die from it).
Second: The procedure itself is extremely painful for the child. Just because he doesn’t remember it doesn’t make it any less so.
Third: It’s an irreversible procedure which is done without the consent of the child. MGM is the only cosmetic surgery done legally without consent in America as far as I am aware.
Fourth: MGM has quite severe negative side effects, such as erectile dysfunction
Fifth: Why should we allow MGM while disallowing FGM despite there being minor types of FGM which are comparable to minor types of MGM?
Circumcision doesn’t prevent that at all though.
And it doesn’t really have any major harmful effects. I’m not sure exactly why you’re so exercised about it.
Maybe so, maybe no. If he wanted to debate, he’d have commented again after my warning; if not, he probably reconsidered whether he wanted to engage, after hearing about how contentious these things can get.
He knew what he was getting into when he pulled that final statement about sexism.
I would prefer a discussion that I am actively involved in not to be derailed into yet another iteration of this neverending debate, it’s true, but more importantly, Dayvan sounded like he was bewildered and hesitant to broach the topic. I merely felt it fair to warn him that this was a fairly emotional topic before he made any hasty decisions, as he seemed unaware of this fact.
Unless you think it proper for people to suddenly find themselves in a war zone without any warning?
As far as I’m concerned you’re one of the people who think a debate shouldn’t exist on the issue of Male Genital Mutilation. Just like the feminists who cry “white about the menz” whenever the issue of male genital mutilation is brought up.
Now if you didn’t want to be seen in that way you could try not immediately shutting down any debate on the issue.
I only thought it fair, given how you’ve told me how I should feel quite a few times.
>>Maybe you should just have stayed out of it and let him argue about circumcision if he wanted it? Eh? Was it too hard?
Given that I preferred the conversation I was observing regarding the growth in healthcare expenses, I’d rather have preferred the topic not changed.
Besides, if you’re this worked up over me not debating you on circumcision, I can only imagine the flames had he actually gone through with it.
Oh good. Now you’re telling me how I feel.
“Why would you invite a circumcision debate, especially with someone using that terminology.”
Maybe you should just have stayed out of it and let him argue about circumcision if he wanted it? Eh? Was it too hard?
For fuck’s sake, you’re the one who was arguing about my terminology. I used a simple throwaway descriptor that I honestly didn’t think much about to highlight why he shouldn’t open this can of worms, and then you spent the next three hours being outraged over how I dared to say that someone using language consistent with a deeply passionate person might, in fact, be very passionate about this issue.
Now for goodness sake, let this drop already. I think we all understand how important you think this issue is by now.
Here’s a hint. If you want to avoid discussion, don’t go in to start arguing about the terminology people use. Stay out of the debate if you do not want to debate, it’s that simple. Do you understand now?
I would prefer to leave you to fight yourself
I was trying to avoid [a circumcision debate] from the start
Doesn’t suggest that I have any desire to initiate debate on this topic
Would you prefer that I be vaguely condescending as I politely attempt to exit the conversation, or would you prefer that I tell you off while trying to rudely exit the conversation?
You care deeply about the topic of circumcision, which is the only thing I alleged.
Given that we agree on the facts of those two point, the only things I asserted, why then are you making my phrasing into a fight? We agree on the material points, but will feud over semantics?
I’m perfectly happy to set aside equivalences and analogies if you’re willing to engage with my actual point. That people who are strongly opposed to circumcision are primarily the ones who refer to the practice by the term genital mutilation, and, given that fact, it is reasonable to expect any discussion of the topic with someone using the phrase to turn confrontational.
Given that you seem to agree with that, I’m not really certain what more there is to say here.
All but two of my posts explicitly refuse to discuss circumcision, or explicitly limit my discussion to talking about our discussion, as I have quoted and linked above.
I would say I’ve been pretty clear about what I’m willing to debate and what I’m not willing to debate, despite your efforts to expand the scope of the conversation beyond which I desire.